Man opens fire on White House vol. God told me to do it

[bruce negro]

Originally Posted by CurbYourEnthusiasm

Originally Posted by bruce negro

Silly putty, I acknowledged the Christian attacks but passed them off as irrelevant due to the extreme difference in scale and the intended targets. You never addressed that at all. Don't claim victory in an argument you didn't even finish. Simply put, one life doesn't count the same as 2000 lives, you're being ridiculously idealistic even proposing that. And I referred to scale in order to measure the notoriety of previous attacks, and when you can show me a direct attack by Christians on AMERICA AS A WHOLE on the same scale as 9/11 then I will concede my argument. But you can't. Don't flaunt your "logical" thinking when you're just preaching ideals.

P.S. I'm not Christian. I'm agnostic.

pretty sure the christian-based KKK killed more innocent americans than the terror attacks of 9/11 did...

just a hunch.


also, although they werent american deaths, the crusades killed roughly more people than the 9/11 attacks...

lets not forget that christianity played a major role in the trans-atlantic slave trade in the USA, as well as Mexico and central america...

or do those not count, either?
  

An ongoing activity and a terrorist attack are two different things, though they both may be extremely negative. Taking this as far back as the crusades will turn this entire conversation into something else completely. Unless you want to go there, but that seems off topic and boring to me. And I think most people treat the KKk with as much hostility as Muslim terrorists, but they don't do too much killing nowadays.

 

[curbyourenthusiasm]

LMAO

you didnt answer anything

you basically danced around the answer

because you just couldnt bring yourself to type it.


again

the KKK led countless terrorist attacks for decades in this country......all in the name of christianity....

with a death toll probably 20 times that of the 9/11 terror attacks.

these were domestic terrorists carrying out domestic terrorism....

you asked for a situation in which christian terrorists did something "worse" than 9/11

i gave you 5.

you said "we cant bring that stuff up, its off topic"

how?

its terrorism that led to innocent people dying....in the name of religion....specifically, christianity, which you specifically asked for someone to name specific acts of christian terrorism.....and i did.....and you said "but that doesnt count...its boring"

LMAO

like, this is why i stopped joining in on these threads

yall can barely comprehend whats being typed to you.


how about this, the mississipi church bombings.....fire bombings of churches, by other christians, based upon the color of the skin of the people who attended the church

thats boring and doesnt count either, huh?

 

[boys noize]

Originally Posted by bruce negro

Originally Posted by CurbYourEnthusiasm

Originally Posted by bruce negro

Silly putty, I acknowledged the Christian attacks but passed them off as irrelevant due to the extreme difference in scale and the intended targets. You never addressed that at all. Don't claim victory in an argument you didn't even finish. Simply put, one life doesn't count the same as 2000 lives, you're being ridiculously idealistic even proposing that. And I referred to scale in order to measure the notoriety of previous attacks, and when you can show me a direct attack by Christians on AMERICA AS A WHOLE on the same scale as 9/11 then I will concede my argument. But you can't. Don't flaunt your "logical" thinking when you're just preaching ideals.

P.S. I'm not Christian. I'm agnostic.

pretty sure the christian-based KKK killed more innocent americans than the terror attacks of 9/11 did...

just a hunch.


also, although they werent american deaths, the crusades killed roughly more people than the 9/11 attacks...

lets not forget that christianity played a major role in the trans-atlantic slave trade in the USA, as well as Mexico and central america...

or do those not count, either?
  

An ongoing activity and a terrorist attack are two different things, though they both may be extremely negative. Taking this as far back as the crusades will turn this entire conversation into something else completely. Unless you want to go there, but that seems off topic and boring to me. And I think most people treat the KKk with as much hostility as Muslim terrorists, but they don't do too much killing nowadays.

Oh. The invasion by Christians to reclaim the holy land, slaughtering all who stood opposed them including Muslims, "heathens", and others who didn't kowtow to the Pope, and which lasted 300+ years was just an "ongoing activity."
Carry on. 

 

[deuce king]

Well it's over for dude now, he just got officially charged with trying to assassinate President Obama.  It's a wrap for him. 

 

[antonlavey]

Originally Posted by B Smooth 202

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

Originally Posted by B Smooth 202

how do we truly know the circumstances regarding this story?...there aren't any details about this man other than the article mentioning  he believed he had a personal mission from God to target the white house....are you going to believe what you read that easily?

the way this entire thing is perpetuated to suggest God would directly manifest himself in such a rudimentary way as in direct dialogue between this particular individual is farfetched...but thats not to say this man wasn't inspired by God to carry out such actions in response to the actions of the white house as well as the historical legacy of this nation and government.


why don't you ask yourself what makes the US government more valid than any other government? Thats a much more tangible question...but no...you'd rather question the existence of God instead of whats right in front of you....genius.

Thank you, I actually get called this a lot I don't need to hear it from you in every thread

This thread is not about the US govt, if there is something else you want us to discuss go ahead and make a thread about it--Always tryna force unrelated topics in religious thread

But yo Anton let's talk about how you're Nigerian and got deported from your country

If a man says God told him to murder somebody are other religious people really in a position to say he didn't? Isn't that the very definition of hypocrisy?

Stop being a shallow person. This thread IS about the government within the context that somebody targeted the White House and cited divine inspiration...

Your a simpleton though...thats why you had to re-affirm your supposed genius in the first sentance...you have no ability to analyze events....go study your MED books...

You know what, just to make you happy I'll digress I'm feeling generous today and every time you call me a genius or congratulate me for reading it lifts my spirits and gives me an added boost of confidence

BSmooth: what makes the US government more valid than any other government?

My answer: Nothing does

Discuss!!!!!

 

[sillyputty]

Originally Posted by B Smooth 202

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

Originally Posted by NikeAirForce1


I see you gunning for that Henzo NTer of the Year award sillyputty.

Why don't one of yall attempt to address sillyputty's arguments instead of attacking him and atheism?

Why don't you believe that God told him to attack the White House? �

Furthermore, what would it take you to believe that God told him to attack the White House?

I was going to give the nod to Ninjahood or Pookie but Silly Putty has earned it---If I say that is that D-riding? Cause I don't wanna D-ride


The underlined question has been asked several times and has yet to be addressed, why is this guy's relationship with God any less valid than anyone else's?

how do we truly know the circumstances regarding this story?...there aren't any details about this man other than the article mentioning� he believed he had a personal mission from God to target the white house....are you going to believe what you read that easily?

the way this entire thing is perpetuated to suggest God would directly manifest himself in such a rudimentary way as in direct dialogue between this particular individual is farfetched...but thats not to say this man wasn't inspired by God to carry out such actions in response to the actions of the white house as well as the historical legacy of this nation and government.


why don't you ask yourself what makes the US government more valid than any other government? Thats a much more tangible question...but no...you'd rather question the existence of God instead of whats right in front of you....genius.

Fail.




Wrong again.




What the hell are you reading?




This is a direct line from the story:

The only thing i'll give you credit for is that the police are speaking on his behalf...but I dont think any of us will hear from him for the time being so...

Why is it far-fetched to suggest that god would have a conversation with this man and tell him to shoot at the white house? He said god told him to do it. Why do you think its far-fetched?




Here we have a man that says god spoke to him and you refuse to believe it. Why is that?




There is a difference between saying god told him to do something and saying he was upset with the state of the world and chose to do something. You know this too. So pick a side.




Did god tell him to do this or was it his frustration with the world?




And where do you draw the line?




Is it farfetched for people to think god shows up on the side of a side of burnt toast?




Is this jesus showing up to communicate with us?

Or maybe this is god showing up everywhere:



















Geinus? The part that makes you a "genius" is your horrible attempt at misdirection.

I don't think anyone who is realistic or honest with themselves actually thinks this. The US is far from perfect and thats why people fight every day to make it better.


Communism and socialism work on paper, but as of yet, there haven't been that many successful iterations of it in society...unless you want to ask what I mean by success?...i'm sure the people in charge have no problem with it...but this is another story....




But this is a piss-poor attempt to change the subject.




Are we talking about a man shooting at the white house or are we talking about revolting against the system?

Originally Posted by bruce negro

Please note that I referred to those attacks as terrorist attacks. I never said they weren't terrorist attacks, I said they don't compare with 9/11 because of the scale of 9/11. You still haven't given me an attack perpetrated by Christians of that scale with America as the victim, because that's exactly what happened during 9/11 and instilled the fear/hatred of Islam, even though I don't support that mindset that muslims are bad people. And yes, you named attacks against the military but again, how did the scale compare? You preach ideologies but this world RUNS on numbers. If you're mad about that fact because it invalidates your argument then do something about it, but don't act like that's not the case. Some of the other attacks you mentioned were considered major because they were on American soil, but I still believe they pale in comparison to 9/11 due to the difference in scale, and I think the impact grows exponentially in direct correlation with the number of people when American citizens on American soil are the intended targets. Sorry if this looks messed up or I missed something, typing on my iPhone in class.

SCALE DOES NOT MATTER AGAIN FOR THE LAST TIME.



"Modern America" as a victim doesn't matter. There have been dozens of christian attacks with "modern society" as the victim. What about in the Modern Congo? Modern Sudan? Modern Indonesia? Modern Ireland? You're trying to use a straw-man here to make your point and its not working.


Step outside of geographic boundaries and see things for what its worth. You can't see country boundaries when you're looking at the earth from space. We drew those lines. There aren't colors and thick black lines drawn on the maps of real life.




If people killed is all that matters then we have a problem. Apparently the number of lives killed means something to you. ONE LIFE lost is one too many.




The number correlation does not invalidate my argument...you've been fed this argument before you even realized it. You're in high school. I was in middle school when 9/11 happened. I saw how the country changed first hand. My parents werent born here either so I get to see a different perspective about all this rampant pro-patriotism and what not.




The fact remains the attacks i've listed killed MANY people...what if the USS Cole had been sunk, would you still say that wasn't a major attack?




Thats my point...the NUMBER DOES NOT MATTER. Principle matters. 9/11 matters because propaganda made it matter...not the intrinsic principle of the motivation for the actions as it should have been.




Killing 10 people or 10,000 is all the same if the motivation is ideological.




They are both terror attacks in that they indiscriminately target victims.

 

[bruce negro]

Originally Posted by Boys Noize

Originally Posted by bruce negro

Originally Posted by CurbYourEnthusiasm

pretty sure the christian-based KKK killed more innocent americans than the terror attacks of 9/11 did...

just a hunch.


also, although they werent american deaths, the crusades killed roughly more people than the 9/11 attacks...

lets not forget that christianity played a major role in the trans-atlantic slave trade in the USA, as well as Mexico and central america...

or do those not count, either?
  

An ongoing activity and a terrorist attack are two different things, though they both may be extremely negative. Taking this as far back as the crusades will turn this entire conversation into something else completely. Unless you want to go there, but that seems off topic and boring to me. And I think most people treat the KKk with as much hostility as Muslim terrorists, but they don't do too much killing nowadays.

Oh. The invasion by Christians to reclaim the holy land, slaughtering all who stood opposed them including Muslims, "heathens", and others who didn't kowtow to the Pope, and which lasted 300+ years was just an "ongoing activity."
Carry on. 

WOOOOW completely misconstruing my argument. Yeah, if something lasts 300 years I don't believe it's a terrorist attack, it's something else entirely and probably a lot worse. I don't think the Holocaust was a terrorist attack, but I'm sure my feelings about the terrible nature of the Holocaust align with many of yours. Look, what I'm saying is that singular instances of terrorism constitute a terrorist attack, and people can rally around a single attack of large proportion and change the way society views something. Many terrible things happened in many terrible places in the distant past, but many people wouldn't compare their affect on today's society with 9/11 because of the time difference. If you asked an American who they felt more animosity towards, the British or terrorist Muslims, would they say the British? Probably not, but the British at one point were probably a greater threat to America then than Muslim Terrorists are now. I'm just saying that Muslims have the heat on them NOW because of he scale of 9/11, and that's why they'd make more news and the media would be biased against them.

 

[sillyputty]

Originally Posted by bruce negro

Originally Posted by Boys Noize

Originally Posted by bruce negro



An ongoing activity and a terrorist attack are two different things, though they both may be extremely negative. Taking this as far back as the crusades will turn this entire conversation into something else completely. Unless you want to go there, but that seems off topic and boring to me. And I think most people treat the KKk with as much hostility as Muslim terrorists, but they don't do too much killing nowadays.

Oh. The invasion by Christians to reclaim the holy land, slaughtering all who stood opposed them including Muslims, "heathens", and others who didn't kowtow to the Pope, and which lasted 300+ years was just an "ongoing activity."
Carry on. 

WOOOOW completely misconstruing my argument. Yeah, if something lasts 300 years I don't believe it's a terrorist attack, it's something else entirely and probably a lot worse. I don't think the Holocaust was a terrorist attack, but I'm sure my feelings about the terrible nature of the Holocaust align with many of yours. Look, what I'm saying is that singular instances of terrorism constitute a terrorist attack, and people can rally around a single attack of large proportion and change the way society views something. Many terrible things happened in many terrible places in the distant past, but many people wouldn't compare their affect on today's society with 9/1Silly putty, I acknowledged the Christian attacks but passed them off as irrelevant due to the extreme difference in scale and the intended targets. You never addressed that at all. Don't claim victory in an argument you didn't even finish.1 because of the time difference. If you asked an American who they felt more animosity towards, the British or terrorist Muslims, would they say the British? Probably not, but the British at one point were probably a greater threat to America then than Muslim Terrorists are now. I'm just saying that Muslims have the heat on them NOW because of he scale of 9/11, and that's why they'd make more news and the media would be biased against them.

BINGO.



You're starting to get it...slowly...




Now we can actually address what the hell a "terror" attack is in the first place. 




ITS ALL A MEDIA BUZZ WORD TO CATCH YOUR ATTENTION. 




There is no such thing as a "terrorist" attack when you're a citizen of the earth...hopefully this doesn't go over your head. 




What is a terrorist? 




Every violation against someone else could count as a terrorist attack because someone is supporting an ideology of something or someone else.




tl;dr: Crazy dude (as "defined" by DSM IV) shoots at the symbolic patriotic place where the currently most powerful black guy in the world lives, (with respect to political image or what you mean by "black") and says a magic wizard told him to do it (or maybe hes mad at the world). Media & politicians have trained us (by writing our textbooks, making speeches, shows, and repeating these words) to call it a terror attack because it keeps a story-line going of constant fear and xenophobia (and sells stuff).




*cue wee-bay.gif*
















If you want to read more about how the media defines what they report as terror attacks, I suggest you read their ethical guidelines and standards they claim to uphold on their websites...it helps to ID the bias you read their content with...but most of you won't because you're lazy. 

here is Reuter's example of how they try to streamline what they report: http://handbook.reuters.c...php/Standards_and_Values

 

[curbyourenthusiasm]

but....you said(or one of yall said)....christian terror attacks have never been on the scale of muslim terror attacks...and thats simply false.

in fact, theyve been 20 times worse....

LMAO

the acts in the holocaust were genocide.....and STILL terror attacks...

were the jews not terrorized by the nazis?

then its terrorism

LMAO

basic definitions here.

 

[bruce negro]

Originally Posted by sillyputty

Originally Posted by bruce negro

Originally Posted by Boys Noize

Oh. The invasion by Christians to reclaim the holy land, slaughtering all who stood opposed them including Muslims, "heathens", and others who didn't kowtow to the Pope, and which lasted 300+ years was just an "ongoing activity."
Carry on. 

WOOOOW completely misconstruing my argument. Yeah, if something lasts 300 years I don't believe it's a terrorist attack, it's something else entirely and probably a lot worse. I don't think the Holocaust was a terrorist attack, but I'm sure my feelings about the terrible nature of the Holocaust align with many of yours. Look, what I'm saying is that singular instances of terrorism constitute a terrorist attack, and people can rally around a single attack of large proportion and change the way society views something. Many terrible things happened in many terrible places in the distant past, but many people wouldn't compare their affect on today's society with 9/1Silly putty, I acknowledged the Christian attacks but passed them off as irrelevant due to the extreme difference in scale and the intended targets. You never addressed that at all. Don't claim victory in an argument you didn't even finish.1 because of the time difference. If you asked an American who they felt more animosity towards, the British or terrorist Muslims, would they say the British? Probably not, but the British at one point were probably a greater threat to America then than Muslim Terrorists are now. I'm just saying that Muslims have the heat on them NOW because of he scale of 9/11, and that's why they'd make more news and the media would be biased against them.

BINGO.



You're starting to get it...slowly...




Now we can actually address what the hell a "terror" attack is in the first place. 




ITS ALL A MEDIA BUZZ WORD TO CATCH YOUR ATTENTION. 




There is no such thing as a "terrorist" attack when you're a citizen of the earth...hopefully this doesn't go over your head. 




What is a terrorist? 




Every violation against someone else could count as a terrorist attack because someone is supporting an ideology of something or someone else.




tl;dr: Crazy dude shoots at the place where the currently most powerful black guy in the world (with respect to political image) lives and says a magic wizard told him to do it (or maybe hes mad at the world). Media & politicians have trained us to call it a terror attack because it keeps a story-line going of constant fear and xenophobia. 




*cue wee-bay.gif*

You do understand that I understood his attack as a terrorist attack from jump, right? You do also understand that our original talking point was over why Muslims get more heat from the media than Christians, right? I understand that you're saying the media is biased, I agree with you, but I also say that they don't have an unwarranted bias because 9/11 was the largest major terrorist attack in the US of the past half-century, which was perpetrated by Muslims. Doesn't mean I think Muslims are bad, because I don't. However, just because I can see why the media does what it does doesn't mean that I'm some blind sheep with the wool pulled over my eyes. I'm a keen observer and take things as they are. I'm sorry if you don't see what I'm saying or for some reason can't respect it.

 

[curbyourenthusiasm]

and we're saying that the bias the media has because of 9/11 is wrong.

now you comprehend the argument here?

 

[bruce negro]

Originally Posted by CurbYourEnthusiasm

but....you said(or one of yall said)....christian terror attacks have never been on the scale of muslim terror attacks...and thats simply false.

in fact, theyve been 20 times worse....

LMAO

the acts in the holocaust were genocide.....and STILL terror attacks...

were the jews not terrorized by the nazis?

then its terrorism

LMAO

basic definitions here.

Gotcha gotcha, I see what you're saying. I believe that because events like the crusades were long-term, they aren't a singular attack. Same with the holocaust. I think that 9/11 was a terrorist ATTACK because of it's brevity and distinct ending. Idk, kinda like the difference between a full on war and an event that can start a war. I think we didn't see eye-to-eye because of our different definitions of a terrorist attack. Not saying mine is right or yours is right, but now that you know what I was thinking maybe you can understand my argument in a different light.

 

[curbyourenthusiasm]

no, i got you the first type you typed it in plain english.

so because its convienient to your argument

you're arguing the semantics of the word "terrorist attack?"

lmao

more people died in the name of Jesus Christ in the USA than in the name of Allah

period

argue semantics of that.

 

[thakidmav]

this has got to be one of the most dumpest person out there like did he really think he was gonna fire shots at the white house and not get caught smdh

 

[newbuck]

Oh. The invasion by Christians to reclaim the holy land, slaughtering all who stood opposed them including Muslims, "heathens", and others who didn't kowtow to the Pope, and which lasted 300+ years was just an "ongoing activity."


:facepalm

 

[sillyputty]

Originally Posted by thakidMAV

this has got to be one of the most dumpest person out there like did he really think he was gonna fire shots at the white house and not get caught smdh

Stuff like this blows my mind sometimes...

Originally Posted by bruce negro

I already said I don't agree with the negative opinions of Muslims like, 3 times already. I do see why the media does have that bias, because Muslims terrorists were the ones who committed the worst terrorist attack on the US that would be able to influence the current mindset of Americans and media. Silly putty was arguing that Christians have done the worst or as worse terrorist attacks on the US, but I disagreed. Then someone cited the KKK, but I didn't understand how those attacks would affect the current American mindset and media bias, and I also said that long term events like the slave trade didn't fit with my understanding of a terrorist attack, which you now know explicitly because I gave my understanding of the definition. So now we're here. If I'd known you guys were actually saying that the bias is wrong morally, I would've agreed. But I think the original argument, which i posted above, is a bit different.

Dude what??? 

Your reading comprehension is operating on fumes right now...




 I didn't say that... I simply said that christians attacks are no more meaningful than muslim ones by virtue of the principle that they are ATTACKS ONE IN THE SAME. 




Again, your original argument doesn't hold any weight. The number of people killed doesn't equate to the principle of the attack. 




A "terrorist" attack is no different from another "terrorist" attack because the number of people killed doesn't matter. Its STILL AN ATTACK. 

 

[bruce negro]

I already said I don't agree with the negative opinions of Muslims like, 3 times already. I do see why the media does have that bias, because Muslims terrorists were the ones who committed the worst terrorist attack on the US that would be able to influence the current mindset of Americans and media. Silly putty was arguing that Christians have done the worst or as worse terrorist attacks on the US, but I disagreed. Then someone cited the KKK, but I didn't understand how those attacks would affect the current American mindset and
media bias, and I also said that long term events like the slave trade didn't fit with my understanding of a terrorist attack, which you now know explicitly because I gave my understanding of the definition. So now we're here. If I'd known you guys were actually saying that the bias is wrong morally, I would've agreed. But I think the original argument, which i posted above, is a bit different.

 

[bruce negro]

Originally Posted by CurbYourEnthusiasm

no, i got you the first type you typed it in plain english.

so because its convienient to your argument

you're arguing the semantics of the word "terrorist attack?"

lmao

more people died in the name of Jesus Christ in the USA than in the name of Allah

period

argue semantics of that.

I actually hate arguing semantics, so I try to give my semantic understanding of something so we can both agree and then argue using that operational definition. Hard to do on the net though. And yeah, I agree with you, but psychologically I think humans are more influenced by actual events than something that's ongoing. I mean, banks have been screwing Americans over for years but the whole occupy movement started because of the event of Bank of America's announcement of a new charge that people didn't like. BoA has been screwing its customers for years with little opposition, but that event of an announcement caused a huge uproar. Under that logic, I argue that an event like 9/11 can cause significant distaste for Muslims because it was a specific event versus Christians who may be just as bad, but haven't done an event of the scale of 9/11. Are we on the same page?

 

[foxdawg2000]

The lack of education and dependence on the media to define everything in our daily lives will be the death of this country...  

Fox News refers only to Muslims as Terrorists=Christians in America Forever Exempt (both past and present) from the category

At one point in this country's history the media was a supplement to our educational growth, nowadays the media is the only means of education for many kids and adults alike..

Dangerous

  Especially when people are so partial to their own race, religion and culture that they refuse to examine issues from various perspectives..

Zeal can be just as dangerous as if not more dangerous than Racism and often they coincide

 

[sillyputty]

Originally Posted by Mo Matik

Originally Posted by CurbYourEnthusiasm

and we're saying that the bias the media has because of 9/11 is wrong.

now you comprehend the argument here?

This is what I was trying to get at. Sillyputty, you seem to have understood my point differently; that I am talking about the difference in bias between Christianity and Islam. This wasn't my point, and it was never my intention.

I was getting at the fact that the mass media is controlled by the political agenda. This isn't anything new; we saw it in the case of Vietnam, the Cold War. I'm talking about propaganda, the manufacture of consent. Exemplified in the selective use of terms like "terrorist."

In Islam, we believe that, as you already know, Muhammad was a Prophet of God. What you don't seem to know, is that we believe that he was the final Prophet of God. Meaning that this was God's final revelation to man in the form of the Qur'an. So no one can claim that they are being told by God to do anything-what we need to fulfill is as Muslims is outlined in the Qur'an. This is so fundamental, that to become a Muslim the only thing you must do is declare "I bear witness that there is no God except Allah, and I bear witness that Muhammad is the last and final Messenger of Allah." I am belaboring this point because, frankly, you should know that considering how much of an interest you've taken to discussing theology.

Are you blind?

I directly said that I agree with you in some parts on the first and second page. 

Go back and read again. I just said that ultimately to me though it doesn't matter who gets more media attention because an attack is an attack, no matter who does it as I have no preference for either side.

On top of that I know how islam works so spare me the theology lesson. I know how important jesus is to islam as "just another prophet" etc... I know all of this already...in fact i've proven to you my knowledge of islam dozens of times over many threads and your reluctance to identify this shows me that you aren't even reading my responses. 

On top of that, I haven't even MENTIONED theology in this thread...AT ALL. No mention of hadiths, suras, qurans, hijabs. NOTHING. 

So frankly, I don't know WHY you're saying all of this...

I simply asked the question that HOW CAN YOU CERTIFIABLY SAY THAT GOD DID NOT TELL THE SHOOTER TO GRAB A GUN AND SHOOT AT THE WHITE-HOUSE? 

Again, re-read the thread

But if you really want to go there, how was Muhammad the last prophet but every one before muhammad wasn't the last prophet nor were the ones that have come forth since muhammad? What about Joseph Smith? He said god made him the last prophet. 

 

[mo matik]

And I'm simply answering that question. From the Islamic perspective, you cannot say that God has told you to do x, y, or z, because it's already outlined in the Qur'an, the final revelation.

As for your point about Joseph Smith, maybe you should have considered reading the "the theology lesson." Muhammad is the last and final messenger of God. Joseph Smith was born in 1805.

 

[antonlavey]

Originally Posted by Mo Matik

And I'm simply answering that question. From the Islamic perspective, you cannot say that God has told you to do x, y, or z, because it's already outlined in the Qur'an, the final revelation.

As for your point about Joseph Smith, maybe you should have considered reading the "the theology lesson." Muhammad is the last and final messenger of God. Joseph Smith was born in 1805.

So the validity of a religion/ prophet depends on which came first and who was the first to say they were the last prophet?

Secondly, why should we believe Muhammad's word over the word of millions of people in history who have claimed to have seen or talked to God or Gods? If I told you Muhammed and Allah came to me in a dream and said Muhammed has been a bad boy in heaven and is no longer the final prophet and a new last one is on his way would you believe me? If not, why not---I'm essentially doing what Muhammad did

Waits for rant about how the Quran is so poetic

 

[dipsetgeneral]

Originally Posted by Al Audi

Thank God he wasn't a Brotha.

Co-signin' this to the fullest!
*Phew!*

 

[lukewarm skywalker]

Man kills another man by shooting him with a gun. Stupid mob persecutes the gun for killing the man.

...

...

...

 

[lacesunlimited]

dude is a nut job